Especially significant was a tweet from Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute, who for many years worked alongside James Hansen. “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”

Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

Inadvertently Schmidt’s tweet demonstrates how far climate science has crossed the boundary deep into pseudo-science. Karl Popper observed of the trio of pseudo-sciences prevalent in 1920s Vienna that their followers could explain why non-believers rejected their manifest truths. For Marxists, it was because of their class interests. For subscribers to Freudian psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler’s psychology, non-belief was evidence of unanalyzed repressions crying out for treatment. So it is with climate science. Only the pure of heart should be allowed an opinion on it.

In the other thread EliRabbet writes:Suffice it to say that Prof. Bengtsson is on the political far right in his comments and quite close to the Swedish equivalents of the GWPF.

Two explanations for this unfair attack on Lennart Bengtsson:

a) malice b) ignorance

In fact Lennart Bengtsson explains in a comment to the thread that Eli linked to:

With the large number of graduates among the signatories could perhaps be expected to be a little more critical and open thinking and not just this fairytale flum. The world today is dependent on fossil fuel energy to more than 80% and with 1.4 billion people who do not have access to electricity, and where half the population is underförsörjda with energy seems hardly worry this light riddarvakt the least.

Next step will be to ban the faulty thinking or ban or even burn inappropriate books as the eminent Belgian energiexperten Samuele Furfaris recent book: "Vive les énergies fossiles!" with subtitle "La contre-Révolution énergétique" the only hope is that these untertecknare or rather their klimatstridande students do not normally read books in French.

In its final stages, we expect to also various inappropriate persons will be banned in this nysvenska reverse info hours. How then will solve the world's energy problems with only so-called renewable energy this may well trained and credentialed joined still could spend a view. For the rest, there is an established tradition in nysvensk to banish inappropriate thinking in the last"tankeförbudslagen" against nuclear energy. This does not seem to even disturb a part of our akademikollegor.

A lot of what has been achieved in academy energigrupp risk now also to be banished. As an individual must now also consider the risk to be banned or in the best case that even critical thinking is banished. I read enough about 1930s intellectual atmosphere in Europe is enough to give me real be claustrophobic.

In fact in the (from Eli) translated comments he explains (3 comments):

People's feelings and ideas are often irrational and darken not infrequently malice. A lousy education in science does not make it better. In its individual madness which in this case may not be to laugh at the silliness. Serious problems arise when feelings be collectivised first as for example in the Chinese kuturrevolutionen and in the German national socialism.

It is this that we must always be vigilant against and there are no guarantees that are not similar banter will come back. The fact is that there are always characters that are trying to bring prejudices and turbid performances to life just as Hitler did with anti-semitism. Whether our time uninhibited communication activities improves or exacerbating the situation is a completely open question...............It is a pity that DDR has disappeared otherwise it would have been able to offer one-way tickets for these vurmande socialists. Now, there is, unfortunately, not many purists still countries soon and I really think our romantic grönkommunister does not want to have a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if there is interest i will be happy to contribute to the trip as long as it is a utresebiljett. Perhaps we could arrange a gallupstudie then it cannot be excluded that i underestimated utresebehovet..............................Dreams of better worlds has always been there. I remember all the images from long ago on the lucky all rosy where prinskorvar and buttocks grew on the trees. It was dreams that many poor had in 1700-century Germany. The number of poor people today in the world 3the may have similar dreams I can understand but not, however, dreams of a worse life and a poorer world. It is for me something perverse and contributes to my extremely negative perception of the grönröda ideology.

Based on observations made for quite some time, and due to the current occasion (IPCC 5), colleagues in the meteorological circles have been witnessing with worry how certain developments are becoming cemented into their scientific fields (foremost climatology) which from a scientific point of view simply cannot be accepted and do not comply to their professional ethics....The changes that have taken place in science as a result have in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science. For example expressed and disseminated meteorological flaws can hardly be contained and cannot be corrected publicly at all. Yet our meteorological scientists do not speak up......Meteorology-climatology is playing a decisive role this political action. The – alleged – CO2 consensus here is serving as a lever within the group that consists of known colleagues who deal with climate, but also consists of a large number of climate bureaucrats coming from every imaginable social field. Together both groups consensually have introduced a binding dogma into this science (which is something that is totally alien to the notion of science)..... in the end it is almost dictatorial. Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished?.....The constant claim of consensus among so-called climatologists, who relentlessly claim man-made climate change has been established, attempts to impose by authority an end to the debate on fundamental questions. .....Such a regulation and the resulting incalculable consequence it would have for all people would in our view – and that of many meteorological specialists we know - be irresponsible with respect to our real level of knowledge in this field.

We must desire in general, and also in our scientific field, a return to an international scientific practice that is free of pre-conceptions and cemented biased opinions. This must include the freedom of presenting (naturally well-founded) scientific results, even when these do not correspond to the mainstream (e.g. the IPCC requirements).

"Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.

One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al)."

The idiom is not unique. In Quebec French, it may take the form comparer des pommes avec des oranges (to compare apples and oranges), while in European French the idiom says comparer des pommes et des poires (to compare apples and pears). In Latin American Spanish, it is usually comparar papas y boniatos (comparing potatoes and sweet potatoes) or commonly for all Variante of Spanish comparar peras con manzanas (comparing pears and apples). In some other languages the term for orange derives from apple, suggesting not only that a direct comparison between the two is possible, but that it is implicitly present in their names. Fruit other than apples and oranges can also be compared; for example, apples and pears are compared in Danish, Dutch, German, Spanish, Swedish, Croatian, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Slovene, Luxembourgish, Bosnian, and Turkish.

Alarmist blogs often try to silence or ridicule dissenting ideas. Having tried to understand the Moon-hoax-debate by reading through alarmist forums, I realized that non-alarmists have very often been banned from those blogs and forums. The reasons brought forward by blog-administrators were the following (mostly ridiculous) accusations:

a) Gish Gallop

(the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time.)

b) Trolling

(trolling' is the anti-social act of causing of interpersonal conflict and shock-value controversy online... trolling is purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls themselves are emotionally-immature users who thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments...)

c) Sock puppet

(is an online identity used for purposes of deception. ... originally referred to a false identity ... pretending to be another person. The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website.)

d) Dunning Kruger

(This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.)

The first climate-alarmists I met on german forums, some 20 years ago, used exactly these tactics. In fact my very first alarmist contact on the internet explained me, if I ever used the word "hockey stick" again, she would leave the forum. I didn't know what they were talking about.

Trolling and sock-puppeting are the new reasons to ban dissenting writers on alarmist blogs. They even delete all their past comments.

All these techniques are very effective to silence everyone who tries to prove errors in the reasoning of the blog dictators. Alarmist bloggers are the ones who are gish-galloping and trolling, but they accuse their dissenters of doing this.

"I think it is also clear to anyone that the organisation is run by old, white males, a group that generally has conservative tendencies."

"is pure concern trolling. The whole Bengtsson storm in a teacup isn't about the climate science community damaging itself (we don't know how many sent what and how to Bengtsson), but about the fake skeptic and policy delayer community spinning it that way through classical concern trolling."

"climate revisionists like you effectively deny that CO2 is a GHG."

"This battle is not about left vs right (a divide&conquer tactic), but about young vs old and rich vs not-rich."

On the swedish blog Mister Lennart Bengtsson has explained his views in some more swedish comments (I've translated by machine). They may explain his reasons a little bit more precisely:

58lennart Bengtsson2014/05/19 kl. 16:31

Climate change policy has occupied political wing armed groups have become klimataktivister and the corresponding right-wing groups have taken an opposite setting. My first attempt to depoliticise klimatforskningen has failed, but I have not given up. Only those who never try to avoid a failure. We can only hope that the Austrian professor does not get its way. But if this is so, I ask to be faced with a exekutationspatrull with the support of my CV and not burned live on pyres.

65lennart bengtsson2014/05/11 kl. 07:22

I agree with the title of the part is particularly unfortunate since the words "banned" has an extremely negative connotations in the English language. I belong to a generation which read Selma Lagerlöf - authoress that even today's Swedes should read, Perhaps even journalists in the country and headline writers point to when it comes to the basic idea of the letter as is, of course, the actual Swedish greenhouse gas emissions are negligible and to large parts practically resolved especially if you include nettoackumulationen in vegetation.

Our electricity is already fossilfri and the wind power installed in recent years not required in Sweden but are exported. Hopefully it provides a profit on the basis of the contribution that we all give to be electricity bills, Money that could be used to build housing or other neededglobal emissions is large then we now soon is 7.5 billion people, but it does not necessarily mean that the impact on the climate is great. So far, the global warming only amounted to 0.8 °C since the end of the 1800s and is in the near imperceptible compared with the natural klimatvariationerna. Extreme weather conditions have not increased according to the detailed meteorological studies that have been carried out. During the 1930s was the bl a more extreme heat in Sweden with 37° in Uppsala, Sweden on 9 July 1933. Storms do not have become more frequent and more intense. Not even we have seen more extreme hurricanes. Damage caused by extremväder as well as earthquakes have increased in pace, but GDP and is a result of increased population and more infrastructure. This is a serious but not triggered by an increased Swedish självspäkning or reduced CO2-emissions but by better planning and safer buildings. It is also wise not to settle in vulnerable areas. It is a fact that storms and tempest does not necessarily need to be more frequent in a warmer climate bl a kommert our own vinterstormar becomes less sharp in a milder climate because it is temperature that drives these storms and not the temperature. High-voltage power lines. Much would reduce my concern if they could allow its sense and wisdom prevail and refrain from today's popular fundamentalist action without thought, sans and moderation. Perhaps it would be better to give Christianity a new chance before the new klimatreligion has completely grown over our head.

China is working intensively to solve their environmental problems. Sweden has virtually no environmental problems today to worry about. However, there are number of which are engaged in a deputy suffering in this way experience a higher ethical satisfaction and wish to see that the Swedish environmental problems would be much worse than they are. The best these people can do in my opinion is to invest their energy and passion on something which really gives results and improve people's lives on this earth.

This is the best way to support research and other activities in the first instance is transfererbara and can easily be established where they are really needed and genetic crop production, safer nuclear reactors and small-scale systems based on solar energy and heat pumps as well as methane gas from waste. A factor that must be taken into account is the extensive urbanisation not least in the developing countries with jättestäder which requires power plants with high concentration. This we can only cope with today fossil energy and nuclear energy.

136lennart bengtsson2014/05/11 kl. 22:04++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I find it increasingly difficult to understand the Swedish debate on climate change. For the first participating hardly any expert meteorologist or klimatolog other than in exceptional cases. The scientific reports that deals with the observable climate, exposure conditions, temperature, water and havsis and Landis is well documented in a series of reports summarized by the IPCC and similar for the last 35 years. There is hardly any indications that these data are not reliable.

What we have observed is indicated a weak but in large continuous heating as seen over time scales of a few decades in large has followed the increase in växthusgasforcingen. It is obvious that this must be followed which is also with the extensive observation systems that are now available. It is, however, important to realize that we do not know when the long climate system well enough to now propose concrete measures without even trying to put this in a global context. In the strange DN-appeal require measures of a totalitarian nature, which would be justified in a state of war is absolutely crazy with view on the impact that this would have not least for the economy as a whole.

The problem is that the signatories have not understood the nature of the problem, which is understandable when none of these are dealing with climate modeling but has its expertise on completely other areas. Judgment is in large fearful and concerned citizens who seems to believe that a simulation is that a calculation of an approaching asteroid. This is just not the case but should be seen as a kind of evaluation of the future climate. Error varies by a factor of 3 which in this context may be seen as a best guess.

Based on the empirical data is also the climatic has so far been observed ( if we assume that the whole of the observed subjectively depends on greenhouse gases) approximately 0.3 °C/Watt/m2. This means that when växthusgasforcingen has reached 3.7 Watts/m2, (i.e. , doubling of forcingen compared with the advent) ( It is now approximately 3 Watts/m2) so should the temperature rise to 1.1 °C. This is likely to occur in 25 years. This is a value that is based on the observations and is, of course, uncertain when it assumes that all observed heating depends on greenhouse gas emissions. If it were to be so, as also argued, that aerosols brakes warming sa becomes temperature greater if we cease aerosolutsläppen.

Such an assumption is in klimatmodellerna and is a cause of these gives a greater heating. In order to come up with a sustainable solution in the long term, there are hardly any options on a global scale other than heavy build out of nuclear power. It is, therefore, regrettable that environmentalists mainly in Europe and the USA has done everything in its power to combat this. This is, however, not the case in other parts of the world that Hans Blix recently reported. Renewable energy sources which do not of course is sustainable can only give limited contribution on a global scale during the next 50 years which we realize if it is the very least serious and shown in the report World Energy Council did at the end of last year.

The main reason is the lack of energy density as well as the large variation in time and space. By 2050, fossil energy to dominate when there are no opportunities to build out alternative energy sources more quickly in the incredible amount needed. To create a extremsamhälle of Sweden may satisfy some people in the same way as some people saw their hope to communism in the 1920s and in a second romantic wave in the 1970s, So this is of little help for the rest of the world that does not take these strange dreams seriously then they have to live in the real world.

212lennart bengtsson2014/05/12 kl. 16:32Bengt 186+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2011 WAS CO2 emissions 4.75 tonnes/person and the same time in China 5.92 tonnes/person. (IEA statistics, 2013) The total Swedish emission is approximately 42 Mton or more or less equal to net growth in Swedish forests. In addition, net exports of electricity of 10 TWh/year, which would require 14Mton coal which in turn would generate approximately 51 Mton CO2 VALUES. 2012 Sweden exported 21TWh per year and this year it is certainly more than 10 TWh. The best Sweden can do, therefore, is to build in the first place nuclear power and export surplus electricity sales alternatively produce services that require much electricity and therefore need not be made elsewhere with electricity produced with coal. A further extension of hydropower is also positive for the balance all wind and solel from Germany, for instance.

For Sweden to build out vindel hardly seem sensible except perhaps in the north where the wind is less correlated with the wind on the continent (this as a result of vädersystemens structure and size). To build out of nuclear power is the only meaningful way to reduce fossilanvändningen. As far as climate impact has so far been very little heating with 0.8 °C with an increase in växthusgasforcing at approximately 3W/m2. If warming continues at this rate, we will have approximately 1.2 °C if 25 years i.e. when växthusgasforcingen corresponds to a CO2 doubling or 3.7W/m2. Any increase of extreme väderhändelse cannot be demonstrated with the damage of extremväder and earthquakes have in large followed GDP. In a warmer climate you can also expect that these storms will become less intense. Just consider that the wind blows most of winter and autumn. As has been said, that the only effective way in my view to actually reduce fossilanvändningen is to invest in nuclear power. Listen to Hans Blix who knows what he is talking about. In conclusion it would be nice to read an article in the DN where there were figures also and not just options regarding derivative.

All of these strange reports should preferably be in the recycle bin. They do not have much to do with science. If the "klimatvetenskapen" was serious would be in rather than to try and understand why the increase DOES NOT have speeded up over the last 21 years, and why it was the same great 1920-1950 ( according to IPCC report) as well as to the increase already started around 1850. This research should be about. What we are seeing is rather a scientific decline which Research Council and universities should deal with. If this is not done soon, we will get a scientific crisis.

264lennart bengtsson2014/05/13 kl. 17:05Mats G *263

It is precisely this which is the most serious aspect of today's "climate and environment policy" in several respects ignore science. The most important thing is to have the 'public opinion' which is not a special concern of the public perception and thus be considered as politically correct. It is precisely for this reason that society tends to reject knowledge that nuclear energy and genetic crop production because the political people do not dare to challenge the serious prejudices which thrive in society.

308Lennart bengtsson2014/05/15 kl. 07:56

Just want to make it clear that the reason that I decided to leave GWPF was that I was subjected to a veritable storm of criticism by a number of colleagues because the GWPF in their eyes was a "förnekarorganisation" .I agree on no way this view even if I am in many respects has a slightly different view than GWPF when it comes to purely scientific issues.The reason that I chose to resign was that I realized that there was not any opportunities to contribute to a more civilised debate based on objectivity and facts. Special situation was so excited in the United States to a colleague had requested that his name removed from a joint publication on climatic only for the reason that I was with and associates of what was perceived as a "förnekarorganisation" and it was thought that this could affect the assessment of the part.

I solved this problem by yourself pull away my name. Until further notice, may I continue anyway but has received a great deal of support of people and other colleagues across the world. The secretary-general with a number of other climate scientists is that I have a different dynamic and more positive than an ambitious and believe that the climate issue has been exaggerated in the debate and in so doing have obvious religious overtones. I am deeply concerned about as I said klimatvetenskapens integrity, and of the attitude to extreme views (Radikalhandlung) as we saw in the DN debate last Saturday.

Since what Eli wrote/translated appears to have been commented on here in perhaps not the friendliest way, allow, even at this late date, the Rabett to write a few words.

L’Affaire Bengtsson was all over the Climate Blog world and even penetrated into the real media. What Eli and the bunnies need is perspective. While this flood appears to have come from nowhere, it came from Sweden, and has been percolating there for a few years, but, of course, in Swedish.

There, IEHO, is the crux of the matter. Bengtsson functions in different linguistic and national worlds. It was first in Sweden that his political and science policy worlds came together, but even there, his writings in the national media, while in part skeptical of the IPCC consensus were not outside of the 97%, or at least not much. At conferences, he went further, and as a commenter on the blogs (esp of the Stockholm Initiative) he joined a far right wing view of the world and his colleagues that was despicable. (See, for example here, here and here.

The explosion about Bengtsson's joining the GWPF, should not have surprised any speaker of Swedish or reader of Swedish climate blogs, but, of course, it was a shock to those stuck in the English (and evidently German) worlds.

Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL

The participants of KLIMAZWIEBEL are made of a diverse group of people interested in the climate issue; among them people, who consider the man-made climate change explanation as true, and others, who consider this explanation false. We have scientists and lay people; natural scientists and social scientists. People with different cultural and professional backgrounds. This is a unique resource for a relevant and inspiring discussion. This resource needs sustainable management by everybody. Therefore we ask to pay attention to these rules:

1. We do not want to see insults, ad hominem comments, lengthy tirades, ongoing repetitions, forms of disrespect to opponents. Also lengthy presentation of amateur-theories are not welcomed. When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.2. Please limit your contributions to the issues of the different threads.3. Please give your name or use an alias - comments from "anonymous" should be avoided.4. When you feel yourself provoked, please restrain from ranting; instead try to delay your response for a couple of hours, when your anger has evaporated somewhat.5. If you wan to submit a posting (begin a new thread), send it to either Eduardo Zorita or Hans von Storch - we publish it within short time. But please, only articles related to climate science and climate policy.6. Use whatever language you want. But maybe not a language which is rarely understood in Hamburg.

Deutsche Welle collects your questions about climate

The German broadcaster Deutsche Welle collects your questions via email, youtube, facebook and twitter, which will be the answer by an expert.